So, the job-creators are asleep at the switch, despite having the lowest tax as a percentage of income in history.
Yup. Why I hate tax cuts. They're candy to the voters, once they're enacted they rarely are reversed, and nobody's willing to give up spending to pay for the tax cuts. Taxes should only go up or be flat.
dapip Except taxes on income, capital gains, inheritances at the federal level actually has been shifted upwards. If you believe simply taxing the wealthy at higher rates is going to fix you’re perceived income inequality problem you are deluding yourself. Your post is interesting because it raises the question “What is the true role of our tax system?” Is it to raise enough revenue to fund the amount of government we collectively deem appropriate? Or should it raise enough revenue to fix all of our societal ills?
This made me laugh. A wise man once said if you cut taxes and revenues go up you haven't cut them enough. That is the truth. But I am glad to see you proposing a flat tax.
You are asking the same as @MMattR Do we want people “on their own”, or do we want to be more European. The problem is that we want both, a European Style Government while funding the Government like a Latin American country. It is obvious what Dpit wants, he wants the big government taxing the rich to solve the social ills of the country.
You and ceezmad keep missing the point. My goal is not to balance the budget on the back of the poor job creators. What I advocate for is to return to more sensible policies that were in place the last time the budget was balanced. Higher taxes, definetely needed but we need also to solve the unemployment and earnings problem. Put more people to work at higher wages and with slightly higher taxes. That also means less government assistance. Boom. Problem solved.
You say that like it is a bad thing? I agree, let's get spending down to a managable level of GDP and grow GDP. Just want to point out... of all tax revenue streams capital gains revenues are the most effected by tax rates. If you think you are going to get an explosion of tax revenues by raising capital gains rates from 15% to 25% you are sadly mistaken. Dividend taxes are also likely to produce alot less in revenues than you are projecting.
"It was so simple like the jitterbug it plumb evaded me". You are right... let's get back to Clinton Era spending and taxes and let's also invent a new revolutionary technology like time travel and everything will be good. We are fighting a demographic fire and you are pretending if we just raised the minimum wage everything will be okay.
Yep. And it's time to get back up to that number. Then if we can pull it back to 20% like the Clinton years, we'll see a surplus again.
not feeling too good about the chances of a deal right now. but my gut tells me that a deal will still get done. there's just too much to lose politically for both sides involved otherwise. tax increases for the middle class along with significant cuts in foreign, but especially domestic spending is just not the way to go when so many Americans are still unsure (or at least haven't felt the effects) of the fragile economic recovery - as demonstrated by today's consumer confidence numbers.
******** the Europeans. I want a companionate safety net, but one that encourages people to better themselves. When you have three generations of government dependency something is wrong. I'd also like a sensible fiscal policy where my government can put out not only a 1 year budget, but also a budget that projects 5 and even 10 years into the future. And a fiscal policy that doesn’t require us to borrow 46 cents for every dollar we spend, no matter how cheap the interest rate or how quickly the Fed can print new greenbacks. If that is "on their own" than I want to be "on my own".
Libertarian, but who cares when we're blindly throwing out labels. BTW, when did the Senate last pass a budget?
VFish: What demographic crisis are talking about? Yes, a lot of people is retiring and demanding more medical care, but a good portion of it is paid for. Furthermore, Repuglicans are not proposing to cut most of the benefits for this generation of retirees but for future benefitiaries. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/
a couple graphs that dispute a few things over the last few pages and an interesting, if not too long to actually read, article busy, busy graph http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/27/2012-the-year-in-graphs/
Paid for with money we've already spent. If you have a savings account that you deposit $100 into every month and you wife withdraws $100 every month do you consider that an asset? What if she withdraws $200 every month?
Fatbastard, the question isn't whether or not tax revenues can reach 20% of GDP, it is whether or not we can expect tax revenues to exceed 20% of GDP for an extended period of time.
That is why I root for the cliff (Beware of what you wish for, I know it could be bad), if the AMT goes up, the Bush-Obama tax cuts go away then we will be close to that 18-20% revenue range (add some Capital gain taxes and we are probably there). Now the problem will be 1. The people are going to be pissed taxes went up, so the Democrats and Republicans will want to cut taxes again (Democrats for some, the Republicans for all). That would be a bad idea IMO. 2. Even with the sequestration (spell?) we still need to do more to reduce spending to below 20% (if that is what we really want).
It depends on what you consider a problem. As of January 3, the Senate will be a little less problematic for people of my ilk.
Sigh.... And furthermore, with a slight adjustment (collecting social security contributions on incomes above the current limits) the fund will be solvent until the next century.... And you complain about people not reading articles..